IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 06 October 2021 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50373A1EF4; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5bFOlKFDDYUQ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51553A1EEE; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9F2182EE; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DPbHWwTdzZl5; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB1C1803B; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF372C1; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <24367.1633460118@localhost> <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 12:18:58 -0400
Message-ID: <6442.1633537138@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/h2FGrQ7Uw0PX4NdHO7Rn07rCbtI>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 16:19:23 -0000

Hi, at the CBOR WG meeting this morning, support for IPv6 LL scopes
was the major topic.

We added an optional third parameter to the interface definition,
and made it valid to specify the interface prefix length as "false"

I hope that I got the CDDL right:
  https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/blob/main/cbor-network-addresses.mkd#cddl

Examples:
  https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/blob/main/cbor-network-addresses.mkd#ipv6

We also agreed to lowercase all HEX, and to leave Ethernet tags for Donald's
rfc7042bis.  (despite that being informational and a possible downref issue)

We agreed that Invalid CBOR is... invalid CBOR, and that the CDDL gives the
details for the limits.

I have posted a revision -10, which I hope satisfies all of the DISCUSS and
comments:

  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09&url2=draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-10



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email